State v. Young

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed Charles E. Young's convictions for marijuana possession, resisting an officer, and obstructing an officer. The court held that the Mendenhall test applies when a person submits to a police show of authority, while the Hodari D. test applies when a person flees, and concluded that Young was not seized until the officer physically detained him. The court affirmed the convictions.

Holdings

1. The Mendenhall and Hodari D. tests coexist: Mendenhall applies when the person submits to a show of authority, while Hodari D. applies when the person flees or otherwise refuses to submit. In the latter situation, no seizure occurs until physical force is applied.
2. The officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop and, after Young exited the car and began walking away and then fleeing, had reasonable suspicion to believe Young was committing a crime when he ordered Young to return.
3. The officer had probable cause to arrest Young for obstruction before physically apprehending him, making the search of Young's coat valid as a search incident to arrest. The evidence was sufficient to support the obstruction and resisting convictions, and the suppression ruling and all convictions were affirmed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop.
2. Whether Young was seized when the officer illuminated the car, ordered him to return, or pursued him, or only when the officer physically apprehended him.
3. Whether the officer acted with lawful authority for purposes of Young's obstruction and resisting convictions.
4. Whether the search of Young's coat and seizure of marijuana were valid as incident to a lawful arrest.

Disposition

affirmed